Buick Dynaflow VS Chrysler fluid drive, which is better?

[@ronaldhorton2438]

I grew up in the 50s. The Buick Dynaflo had a distinct sound. I could always tell it was a Buick without looking. Thank you. Keep it up!❤🎉😊

[@DavidSmith-sb2ix]

I remember that sound. Like a moaning.

[@JackSquat54]

I remember the Chevy power glide had a whining sound in neutral. Same transmission maybe ?

[@karlbishop7481]

The guy across the street from us had a DynaFlo Buick. His driveway was on an incline. When he came home from work and went up the hill the trans "slipped" horribly allowing the engine to sound like it had a burnt out clutch. It grated on my nerves even though I was only about 12 at the time. We had Dodge a few years earlier with a Fluid Drive, it was better.

[@davidhollenshead4892]

They used to call the early dynaflo cars the "dynaflush", because if you floored it from a stop it would sound like a toilet being flushed...

[@jamesbosworth4191]

@@JackSquat54 Not exactly, but a very similar smaller lower cost version of it.

[@rickc303]

On the Chrysler, low range is only needed for hill climbs. It was meant to be driven in high range nearly all the time

[@enzomarin0]

Yes very true

[@winstonelston5743]

DeSoto did a transcontinental trip with two cars, one with conventional manual transmission and one with Fluid Drive, both carrying billboards on top, one line showing how many times the driver had pushed the clutch and one showing how many times this the driver had shifted. The numbers were updated in real time by an automatic counter. The team in the Fluid Drive car registered one shift and one use of the clutch for the whole trip while the conventional showed thousands. This was in the days before neutral/clutch safety interlocks so the Fluid Drive team just parked where they could pull forward out of the space and left the car in high range for the whole trip.

[@mfbfreak]

@@winstonelston5743 It would've been so interesting to see if there was a significant difference in fuel consumption in that trip! I've heard really bad numbers from (american) owners of some of those american 50s cars with a V8 and a transmission that doesn't shift at all in the traditional sense of the word, or only has 2 gears.

[@winstonelston5743]

@@mfbfreak I didn't see that information in the article. I had a '51 Studebaker Commander (V8) with overdrive, around 15 in town and around 22 to 25 on the highway.

[@garyfrancis6193]

That’s what I would do.

[@edb5956]

It is just awesome that a young fellow like you can do such a great job of demonstrating and explaining these two technologies from the same era. Your maturity and clarity are better than others who are way more advanced in years than you. Please keep up the good work. Thank you!

[@enzomarin0]

Thank you for watching

[@treesnmoguls]

Ditto!

[@buzzwaldron6195]

@@enzomarin0 - Have you looked at the semi-centrifugal clutch used in GM X-bodies?

[@jimstrict-998]

He made a big mistake when he said that Fluid Drive included a torque-converter, it did not.

[@buzzwaldron6195]

@@jimstrict-998 - May have said torque converter because fluid coupling term pretty much disappeared after 1964...

[@emjayay]

The Chrysler is an updated pre WWII design. The Buick is the first actual new postwar Buick postwar design. The Buick 8 obviously has overhead valves but the Chrysler is a flathead engine. Both with huge steering wheels with about 6 turns lock to lock because power steering didn't come along until 1951 Chryslers.

[@timothymabry1960]

Great video but a few summarized corrections, as stated by others, on the Chrysler. 1. It's a fluid coupling, not a torque converter. There is no torque multiplication. Think of 2 fans pointing at one another with one fan turned on. It's not as efficient as a torque converter. 2. When taking off you are supposed to let the clutch out when stopped, not to get going. Engine running, foot on brake, engage clutch, select gear, release clutch, release brake, apply gas. Sounds complicated but it's not. 3. It's designed to use Hi range most of the time. You start off in HI (3rd) and then let it shift into 4th. Theoretically once you do that you no longer need the clutch for the rest of your trip unless you need to reverse or start up a steep hill. Now in reality it makes for a VERY slow start but that's how it was designed to be driven.

[@reijerlincoln]

Cool to see the next generation is getting into classic / vintage cars.

[@byronh60]

This was one of the best videos I’ve ever seen explaining how those transmissions worked and provided actual examples! These cars were built way before your time and I felt you described them so well! Thanks, keep up the good work. 😊

[@enzomarin0]

Thank you for watching and glad you enjoyed it

[@jonathanhernandez4304]

The first CVT transmission in a sense. And .. OMG the amount of steering wheel movement on that Chrysler.

[@adiamondforever7890]

Days of muscle steering, and possibly a little wear. Have fun

[@billmiller119]

THE STEERING GEARS WERE LOW RATIO TO OVER COME THE LACK OF POWER STEERING !.....////🥸

[@jonathanhernandez4304]

@@billmiller119 Yes I know, done on sailboat for the same reason But it's still looks like he was running an inlet during a squall. Lol

[@emjayay]

@@billmiller119 Along with giant steering wheels.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

All cars were like this, even in the 60s, unless you had power steering.

[@donalddodson7365]

For me, definitely the convertible Chrysler. My brother had a 1948 De Soto with that super-slop semi automatic transmission. If you leave it in "3 - 4" your start from a dead stop will be a long slow, but smooth experience.

[@enzomarin0]

It’s a good looking car

[@tonychavez2083]

Kudos to you young man for knowing and understanding the differences and theory of how those trans worked. I had a 62' Buick Electra w/401 motor and Dynaflow, one of the best cars i have ever owned. I too studied and read all things Ford/Mopar/GM from a young age of about 12-14 onward...

[@dickdomain719]

Did you know if you had hooked up a Tach it would have never exceeded 2,800 RPMs in gear? I had a 55 and a friend of mine said that to me one day and I laughed at it, thought he was joking. I got curious and did just that, Son of a gun, he was right. It's the variable pitch stator that gives the high stall speed on take off and the low stall on high speed. 6k in neutral, 2800 in gear. I wound it out to 75 in low gear never went past 2800, same results in drive. Now I believe the 62 was basically the same design. Probably why them nailheads lasted forever.

[@ND4ZPD1]

Great and informative video, thanks for sharing the special transmissions from these beautiful old cars! Nice work! BTW, I think it's great to see a young person who truly appreciates these old but beautiful automobiles and the special features that could be had with them.

[@enzomarin0]

Thank you for watching

[@JaughnDough]

Good to see young folks taking an interest in the classics. I miss the days when cars had style, both inside and out. And I miss the days of soft suspension, tires with a sidewall, and overstuffed bench seats. Everything today is just so hard and uncomfortable, and so damn difficult to get in and out of. No wonder everybody buys trucks lol.

[@enzomarin0]

these older cars are something special

[@jamesbosworth4191]

That is EXACLY why so many buy trucks, (SUVs are rebodied pickups). I keep reminding the radical environmentalists of this, and how it is all their own fault, as people would NOT be buying so many of them if they could still buy nice full-size cars. With 8 cylinders.

[@sasz2107]

The Chrysler Fluid Drive sounds the same as what they put in Dodges in the early 50s (which is obviously a Chrysler Corporation product) which was called the Gyromatic. At least it operated the same way, so I think it is the same transmission as in the Chrysler you drove but with a different name. Buick had the Dynaflow at first, and then in the early 60s had the Dual Path Turbine Drive on the smaller Buick Special and Skylark, which also involved changing the pitch of the torque converter blades - but it did it all at once in one shift rather than gradually changing it as you sped up. The idea of shifting the angle of the torque converter blades continued to be used into the mid 60s on some cars. The Jetaway in mid sized Oldsmobiles comes to mind. If you pushed the throttle down 2/3 of the way an electrical solenoid engaged that shifted the torque converter blades and gave you better acceleration. You do not have an Oldsmobile available here to test, but in 1940, Oldsmobile developed a fully automatic transmission that became known as the Hydramatic. I don't think that name was used in the beginning but later on in the 40s it was called this. This is eventually the automatic transmission that was used in ALL GM cars (Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac), and eventually what all car companies modeled their automatic transmissions after. This includes the TorqueFlite which Chrysler Corp developed in the mid 50s. This was the easiest to drive (it was only available in Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles at first, which were higher priced cars) - but the driving ease is why it became the dominant type of automatic transmission produced. Chrysler Corporation cars did not have a fully automatic transmission until well after GM and Ford were offering them - so they were falling behind in the early 50s and eventually developed a fully automatic unit so they could continue to compete in the marketplace. By the way, the plaid interior in the Chrysler is known as the "Highlander" interior. Chrysler actually continued to offer a red and green plaid interior off and on into the early 60s, and even brought it back in the mid 1970s on the full sized New Yorker and Newport in 1975 and 1976.

[@charlesgreenwell530]

A childhood car nut, I remember both these lovely collectibles. Our gang referred to Chrysler's fluid drive as "Clunkamatic" for the sound you got when you backed off the gas to get it to shift up. Dynaflow was better, we thought, but the real deal was GM's Hydramatic, which had a fluid coupling & a 4 speed planetary gear set that shifted automatically depending on speed & throttle position & dating back to 1939. In 1953 GM's Hydramatic factory burned, so they filled out the year by equipping Oldsmobiles & Cadillacs with Dynaflow [I got to drive the Olds version once]. Pontiac was given the Chevy Powerglide, simply a Dynaflow style torque converter with [in later years of production] a start in the low range with auto shift to the torque converter. Nice presentation, Enzo. Sure great to see these cars run through their paces.

[@enzomarin0]

Clunkomatic is a good one

[@MrScottie68]

Great video. I see many commenting that the Dynaflo was much better, but Chrysler did make a huge comeback by the 1960s with their 3 speed Torque Flight automatic. That transmission was for the most part bullet proof and could easily surpass 100k miles with zero problems. I owned two Chryslers with that transmission and with one car, even at 143,000 miles, it never once gave any trouble and still shifted flawlessly.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

That superb Torque Flight actually came out in later 56, but only on Chryslers. For 57, it was extended to the other divisions, but was an option.

[@Htfsik]

Owned a ‘66 with Torque Flight. Put 166,000 miles on it with no tranny problems.

[@T-41]

Nice program, these are two beautiful 1940s luxury cars. Chryslers and Desotos both had Fluid Drive (and some Dodges too) That transmission was super durable - bulletproof. It was pretty typical for drivers to just stay in high range for most of their regular driving and not use the clutch much . The non shifting Dynaflow also had a good reputation, smooth and durable. The Packard Ultramatic was similar but included an automatic torque converter lockup to eliminate slipping at steady speed, saving gas.

[@enzomarin0]

Both good desgines

[@terrystewart2070]

I never had a Buick with Dynaflow back in the day, but a buddy did, and no one including him, liked it LOL Seemed like the engine was always winding out but the barge was barely moving! Now the Chrysler; I owned 2 of them with Fluid Drive. The first was a 52 Saratoga Club Couple, I bought from the grave yard of defunct Chrysler dealer in about 1963 for $85. I was 13, so couldn't drive on the street, but I was jazzed to have a hemi! Then I was bummed by that funky transmission! OMG it took forever to shift. After a bit I figured out the best launch was low range, wind it out, skip second by shifting to high range third. That actually worked well. Later, when I was legal, in about 67 or 68 I got a 41 Saratoga, also a Club Coupe, but flat head six with fluid drive. There was no performance to be had there, no matter what LOL But it was a fabulous old car and I had a ton of fun in that thing. Drove it to Reno with my bride to be to get hitched in 68. Hand throttle cruise control pulled all the way out, doing 40 MPH all the way to Donner Summit LOL. Here's something I'll bet not many people know about the fluid drive: It's got low and high in reverse, not just the forward gears! What a hoot LOL High reverse 45 MPH backwards through town! Oh to be 18 again LOL

[@johnarnold893]

I owned a '47 Chrysler that had a 3 speed manual with a torque converter. It had a normal shift pattern on the tree. My next door neighbour had a Dodge with the same arraignment.

[@jimstrict-998]

Actually was a fluid-coupling.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

It must have been the bottom of the line Royal, as the other models came standard with the 4 speed semi-automatic.

[@wymple09]

Yes, I had the same thing in my 1st car. a 48 Plymouth Special Deluxe. It was OK, but really a dog.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

@@wymple09 A Plymouth with Fluid Drive? Must have been done by a previous owner, as Plymouth never offered Fluid Drive.

[@wymple09]

@@jamesbosworth4191 I don't know that any of the drive train was original. It was a 17 year old car already. Cost me 85.00

[@davidmaywood2443]

I remember riding with my Dad in his 56 Buick that had the Dynaflow. What a car it was.

[@johndavidwolf4239]

I has one, with a 322 V8 . The transmission is actually a 2 speed WITH a variable pitch torque converter.

[@hugh007]

I had a 50 Dodge with Fluid drive but it wasn't the 2 range. It was a manual 3 speed behind a fluid coupling (FD wasn't a torque converter). You could leave it in any gear and come to a stop with the clutch still engaged. The purpose was no-shift driving by leaving it in 3rd. It was PAINFULLY slow. I always shifted 1-2-3 to keep up with traffic.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

You had a choice - Fluid Drive with a conventional 3 speed manual transmission, or the GyroMatic, a 4 speed semi-automatic trans.

[@davidtrollope6644]

Chrysler were so good in that era

[@andydanko7074]

Like the Chrysler's looks a lot more and also the Town and Country was available that had beautiful wood. So refreshing to see a younger guy that is interested in cars, especially old cars , new subscriber here right after I send this comment 😊

[@enzomarin0]

The town and country’s are beutfiull but not cheap either

[@omgdwayne1565]

Nice video. Well presented and explained. I think it would be more fun to drive the Chrysler. But both are super nice cars. I've driven an old Buick with the Dynaflow (a 1952 Roadmaster), and it worked really, really well.

[@enzomarin0]

Thanks for watching

[@rickrikardsson7444]

I think I’d take the Chrysler. I was never that crazy about the Buick grill design from that era. The fluid drives were very dependable. Taxi companies in the 40s loved them, which is why so many taxis from that time were DeSotos and Dodges.

[@enzomarin0]

There a great car

[@alanblanes2876]

This was a remarkably well explained description of the two transmissions. It must take a while to get fully oriented on these, especially the fluid drive. You did a terrific job of going over this. Probably the best guide to the fluid drive ever.

[@enzomarin0]

Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for watching

[@careycraig4360]

Great Video! EXCELLENT Explanation of these two Systems. I always Knew about these two types of Transmissions but really never completely understood their operation till watching your Video! THANKS

[@thomasbradley512]

You did very good and you were pretty accurate except on the Buick. The variable pitch torque converter did not come out until 1953. The 1948 to 52 dynaflow automatics basically were torque converter drive but there was no variable pitch. The stator only had one single pitch. The transmission was smooth as can be but it was also slower than a snail and used a lot of fuel. But of course in those days if you could afford a Buick you could afford the gas😊. You did really well with those antiques. Very good for such a young man. Keep up the good work.

[@markwhite1333]

It was known as a semi-automatic. I learned to drive in a 1949 Dodge that had the Fluid Drive. My family had that car for 15 or 16 years. I'd rather have the Chrysler product.

[@yambo59]

I had a Dynaflow in my uncles '63 Buick Lesabre, same shift pattern same dual stator torque converter, no shift just smoothly drove away as the engine noise almost disappeared. Worst down side to these dynaflos trans. was the gas mileage, but that was true of many cars from the era

[@buzzwaldron6195]

The Buick nailhead V8s got bad MPG because the small valves made it hard to make competitive HP so they cammed it up big for HP which ruined the MPG... but gave a racy exhaust idle...

[@automatedelectronics6062]

Great video, thank you! The Buick Dynaflow didn't receive the variable pitch stator until 1955. Of note, after the non-shifting Dynaflow was discontinued, it was replaced by 2 different automatics in 1964 which actually automatically shifted. The V.P. stator was carried over through the 1967 model year. Here is a link to the Dynaflow story: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynaflow The Buick Dynaflow is what today we would considered a CVT transmission. With the Chrysler "Fluid Drive" and the M6 probably used in this car, the transmission itself had 2 forward speeds plus reverse. The additional 2 speeds were provided by a separate under-drive unit. In either high or low range, you would only get one automatic shift. Say you started in the low range, the under drive unit would be engaged. Upshifting, the under drive unit would go into direct range. Then, moving the shift lever into the high range, the under drive unit would still be in the direct range, or 4th gear. The only way to get 3rd gear while in the high range would be to floor the gas pedal. The "Safety Clutch" pedal only had to be depressed when moving the shift lever. It didn't have to be eased out when starting up from a stop. Your foot could be on the brake pedal, clutch pedal depressed, shifted into a range and then released. When you were ready to go, you would just release the brake pedal and step on the gas pedal. In around town driving, the shift lever could just be left in the high position and after initial engagement, the "Safety Clutch" pedal would never have to be depressed. That actual "Fluid Drive" was a 3-speed manual transmission with a fluid coupling(not torque converter) and a "Safety Clutch" pedal for changing gear shift lever positions. This had no semi-automatic function.

[@enzomarin0]

Wow glad some people who really knew there stuff saw this and thanks for further educating me

[@charlescarter1529]

I had a '64 de ville and Fleetwood for years. I always got asked about why they had a Powerglide because of no intermediate position on the shift quadrant, (from the Buick shift pattern used.) I quit explaining it was a Turbo Hydramatic when they would say they saw one with a 4S Hydramatic and I tried to tell that Series 62 and limos used those. That arrangement was used for 1964 only.

[@automatedelectronics6062]

@@charlescarter1529 The early 1964 Cadillacs, manufactured in 1963, could have had a 4-speed Hydra-Matic, until their supply ran out. The Hydra-Matic was replaced by the Buick Super Turbine 400 3-speed automatic. For 1964, one year only, the S.T. 400 didn't have a 2nd gear position, therefore, Cadillac didn't have a Dual-Drive. This was the case once before around 1950, when the Hydra-Matic factory burnt to the ground. Cadillac used the Buick Dyna-Flow for one model year. In 1965, the S.T. 400 gained a 2nd gear position and Cadillac got it's Dual-Drive back. Cadillac referred to it as "automatic transmission" whereas the other GM makes named it the Turbo Hydramatic 400 from then on. When GM renamed their transmissions, it became the 3L80. Pontiac and Oldsmobile continued to use the 4-speed Hydra-Matic, which they named "Jetaway" in 1964 in their flagship models. Lesser models continued to use 2 different versions of the "Slim Jim" 3-speed automatic and, in 1964, all B.O.P. mid-size and smaller models used the new 2-speed Jetaway(based on the Powerglide). Buick's had the Variable Pitch torque converters through 1967 and named their automatics S.T. 300 and S.T. 400.

[@pcno2832]

@@automatedelectronics6062 I saw one of those Dynaflow Cadillacs in a junkyard in the early 1980s; it seemed a shame that a rare car with an interesting story got scrapped, but it was probably considered undesirable in most other respects. Buick continued offering a "Super Turbine 300" in '68 and '69, even though the switch-pitch converter was gone. Rolls Royce sold its version of the 4-speed Hydramatic outside of the USA (where the PNDLR shift pattern had been banned) until '69 or '70.

[@automatedelectronics6062]

@@pcno2832 Yes. I saw the S.T. 300 used '68 and '69 in mid-size Buicks and Oldsmobiles. 1967 was the last year for the variable pitch stator in Buicks. The transmission was renamed TH300 in non-Buicks, but Olds called it Jetaway. Rolls-Royce bought the tooling for the Hydramatic and was last used in the R.H.D. R-R 1967 and maybe 1968. After that they bought the TH400 from G.M. until they changed to a ZF automatic.

[@garyporter516]

The Chrysler had a fluid coupling, not a torque converter. The Dynaflow did have a torque converter. When normal driving the Chrysler most people used only the high range with 3'rd and 4'the gear.. The low range may have ben used on the steep hills of SanFrancico but the low range had such a bull low it was mostly uselees. When you did use the Low range, let it shift into 2'nd the used the clutch to pull it down to the high range you often went directly into 4'th gear. In the Roadmaster the engine was much bigger than in the Super{ 320 cu.in. and 4 inches longer engine block, thats why the nose of the car was longer than the Supers> The 320 handled the Dynaflow better than the Super, noticeably quicker. Packards Ultramatic was also a shiftless torque converter transmission but had a Lock-up torque converter which Buick never had. You do a great job on your videos, I enjoy them all.

[@keithbrescia9893]

If I am not mistaken, the term "Fluid Drive" on Chrysler products of the era referred to the fluid coupling, regardless of what transmission was behind it. Our '51 Dodge had a conventional 3-speed box behind the coupling, and I think the '46 Dodge that preceded it was the same. Dodge models with the 4-speed semiautomatic were badged "Gyro-Matic", while DeSoto used the term "Tip Toe Shift" or something like that. I remember a neighbor with a Buick with the original Dynaflow. When he stepped on the gas, the engine would rev up to nearly constant speed while the car eased away like a diesel-electric train.

[@hagerty1952]

One thing you left out about the Buick is what led to the styling cue that they've been using for almost 80 years now: the portholes. All that hydraulic slippage generates a huge amount of heat. Think of it as if it was a solid clutch that you would let slip to control your speed. The Dynaflow ran so hot that they needed a way to actively cool it. For the prototypes they put some large bore tubing around the transmission case and ran it to the fenders to help exhaust the heat. For production, they moved to liquid cooling (by running the oil up to a little radiator in the front), but the stylist in charge (probably not Harley Earle, but one of his staff) really liked the "porthole" look as a styling element. It's been with them ever since in one form or another. Maserati even borrowed it for their sedans.

[@jbinwash]

would take the Chrysler with fluid drive based on my prior ownership of a 1954 Buick with Dynaflow. The Buick would go pretty fast but it conssumed gas more than anyother car I've owned including an Oldsmobile with a 455 V8 that I loved to drive faster than the law allowed. Also while I never owned a 40's Chrysler Ii did make several long drives in a 1953 Chrysler that literally felt like it was driving on air, had the smoothest power steering and the plushest and most comfortable interior I ever experienced.. Buick is nice and what my Dad would have called a car for a Lawyer or a Banker. But the Chrysler New Yorker was a 10 and I would rate the Buick as a 7 or 8 --nice and clearly better than a Ford or Chevy but not the equal of the Chrysler New Yorker. Your review was well done. Thanks.

[@ChristopherPlom]

What a great demonstration of the two vehicles. Well done on explaining how the transmissions work.

[@enzomarin0]

thank you

[@MrTheMiguelox]

Amazing cars. Just a note. After the car did the automatic 1-2 shift and you manually shift it into high range, the car will be in 4th, you bypass 3rd gear, the car will downshift to 3rd if you slow down to a crawl or by pressing the accelerator to the floor. This works because the transmission itself has 2 manual gears and an underdrive unit 1st and 3rd have the underdrive on, 2nd and 4th have it off. The automatic shifts is the underdrive kicking in and out. And after the shift to 2nd gear the underdrive is off and will be off after you shift into high range, thus shifting directly into 4th.

[@enzomarin0]

Interesting thanks for the info on the 3rd 4th I did not know that

[@MrTheMiguelox]

​@@enzomarin0 Another interesting fact is that in 1st and 3rd gear you have a freewheeling effect, so no engine braking at all.

[@RichardThorne-g1l]

The transmission was a standard 3-speed manual with 1st gear blocked off and an under-drive unit attached. Low range was actually 2nd gear. When you selected low range you were in 2nd gear with the under-drive unit engaged. You would accelerate and when you reached the point you wanted to shift, you would momentarily let up on the gas pedal and the under-drive would automatically disengage putting you in 2nd gear direct. Continuing, you would push in the clutch and shift to high range, and at or near full throttle you would be in 3rd under-drive, switching to 3rd direct by momentarily lifting up on the gas. Flooring the throttle would re-engage the under-drive for increased passing power. It was possible to just leave the transmission in high range and just drive around in that without having to touch the clutch after initially engaging it, but performance was very leisurely.

[@chrisrichard2526]

Same set up my 50 Windsor has.

[@joeamos1188]

@@RichardThorne-g1l There is no blocked off first gear in the M-6 transmission on this Chrysler. There were Dodges in this era that had a regular 3-speed trans with the fluid clutch. Did not have to shift from third while stopping, but acceleration was turtle like. The M-6 transmission in high range/high gear is in direct drive; no overdrive.

[@automatedelectronics6062]

What is important comparing the Buick Dynaflow to a CVT is that a true CVT has a mechanical connection between the engine and the drive wheels. In the top range, a true CVT overdrives. In the Dynaflow, there it never a mechanical connection. There is always slippage in the torque converter, even at cruise speeds. Probably the first true CVT introduced in the U.S. was on the Subaru Justy. In order to remove undo wear on the metal link belt, at idle, a hollow flywheel was used filled with powdered metal, instead of a fluid coupling or torque converter filled with fluid. Through an electrical system, the flywheel is magnetized, solidifying the powdered metal and giving the car a smooth take-off. At cruise, this system gave a true 1:1 powerflow, but because it was powdered metal, extreme demands of power through acceleration or deceleration, there had to be a bit of slippage.

[@theophilhist6455]

Beautiful cars I didn't pay attention to back in the mid 60s. These cars could be had for $150. I had to have a 55 Chevy...for the same price. Oh those were the days.

[@enzomarin0]

55 is my favorite car ever

[@mirchshake50]

Great demo! Love how you are so knowledgeable of these vintage beauties

[@enzomarin0]

Thank you I don’t know everything but just try to give a basic understanding

[@NickTwisp80]

In this era Chrysler was actually at a competitive disadvantage because they did not have a fully automatic transmission until their Powerflite unit came out in the 1954 model year.

[@enzomarin0]

But their still beutifull cars

[@jeromebreeding3302]

Pontiac of that vintage had a fluid coupling and four speeds in their Hydramatic trans

[@lescobrandon3047]

In the 50’s & 60’s we hot Roder’s called Dynaflow “Dynaslow”.

[@davidglunt7267]

and Dynaslush!

[@TheodoreCross-d7b]

There was a song too. Dyna won't you flow??

[@lescobrandon3047]

@@TheodoreCross-d7b - I didn’t hear that one. Great mind think alike.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

@@davidglunt7267 And Dynaflop!

[@billyjoejimbob56]

Both your video AND the many comments here complete the picture. These transmissions were both imperfect solutions to the same challenge, in part sharing the same basic strategy but with different technologies. Both provided the driver with a two range solution, that would allow most drivers to use only the higher range for most "relaxed" driving. The Buick employed one gear ratio with a multi-element torque converter that added a wide range of torque multiplication. The Chrysler offered two gear ratios (in each range) with a fluid coupling, that added flexibility but no torque multiplication. Both offered a lower range (L in the Dynaflow) for steep hills and aggressive acceleration. Both were a step forward, neither were a final solution. At the same time, GM's original 1940 "Hydra-matic" found in Oldsmobile and Cadillac cars featured four distinct gear ratios, fully automatic gear selection, and a fluid coupling providing smooth starts but no torque multiplication. Chrysler was first to launch what would become the industry standard in 1956... Its Torque-flite featured a three element torque converter for torque multiplication driving a fully automatic 3 speed gearbox. Ford soon followed suit. GM eventually did the same in 1964 with the THM400, adding a variable pitch stator that enable stronger low end acceleration and more economical steady state cruising. Variable stators only lasted a few years. Torque converter lock-up clutches, more gear ratios, and electronic controls have extended the basic building blocks of automatic transmission design all the way to the present day, and the end is not yet in sight!

[@josc1014]

I love the Chrysler, their engineering was so far ahead of its time! It's too bad you didn't have a better road, you would see that you hardly ever need the low range, these cars were perfectly fine just leaving them in high range. The Fluid Drive really was 'semi-automatic' in that there wasn't a true torque converter but it worked great for the roads and speeds of the '50s. Good video so I subscribed! Keep 'em coming!

[@beenbeatenbybishops5845]

What a great video. First time I have seen anyone compare the Dynaflow to Fluid Drive. Interestingly, Buick held onto the Dynaflow into the 60's. Chrysler saw the Fluid Drive as a first design to be improved as soon as they could. Thanks. Very entertaining.

[@johnnieguitar5724]

EXCELLENT description! Thank you! One of the best vids I've seen. BEAUTIFUL cars, my gosh.

[@enzomarin0]

thank you and thanks for watching

[@paulgracey4697]

Thanks for the trip down memory lane. When I was 12 in 1954 Dad had a 1949 Chrysler six cylinder sedan with that system, and his father had perhaps that same model Buick. As I remember it the Chrysler was the more efficient. Five years later, my first legiimate job for minimum wages was as a Chauffeur to an elderly spinster, with the 1954 Chrysler V8 Imperial that used the same fluid drive system. One difference in how it had to be handled at a stop was that she had had an aftermarket AC system installed, which meant I had to use that "safety clutch" a lot more to prevent it stalling. As you probably know, more modern cars with AC have two different idle speed settings, one with the AC off and a higher one for when the AC is on. That Chrysler was a real learning experience for 17 year old me, especially in downtown Los Angeles.

[@enzomarin0]

very cool

[@jamesbosworth4191]

A 54 with Fluid Drive? Those were RARE, as almost everybody wanted the new Power Flight.

[@JackSquat54]

Chrysler also made a woody version of this car and called it he Town &Country.

[@enzomarin0]

yes gorgeous car

[@daryllect6659]

Complete with fold-down tables and a picnic basket.

[@edwardallan197]

I drove several Dynaflows and owned one. I loved the performance with the 401 & the 364.

[@enzomarin0]

Great cars

[@jamesbosworth4191]

I had a 364 and my mother had a 401. The Dynaflow worked great with that 401, but for my 364, I had to swap out the 3:08 rear end for the shorter unit that came standard on the hot Century. That made the 364 really come alive!

[@Nunofurdambiznez]

EXCELLENT video!! I much prefer the looks of the Chrysler!

[@enzomarin0]

It’s a gorgeous car

[@ScrotieJohnson]

honestly These Keller era chryslers had wonderful build quality my grandfather has a servivor 50 chrysler Highlander, door latches are odd (very similar to old mercedes) but everything shuts like a vinyage rolls royce, has a virgin wool headliner like a rolls, and that flat head 6 is completely quiet, best part is the Briggs build bodies of these cars very very good quality bodies with good rustproofing- chrysler ended up shitting the bed when they bought briggs and started cost cutting in the mid 50s.(kt keller was president of chrysler and he wasnt very daring on design since the 30s airflow was too radical for the time, basically quality conservative cars with chair height seats and enough hedroom to wear ur hat) Also that fluid drive is completely industuctible.

[@winstonelston5743]

Not the best look for either make, though I like the Buick a little better. Packard offered an "Electromatic" clutch up through 1948 or so, an automatic system that allowed shifting without having to push the clutch (if you see a Packard with a red clutch pedal, that's what it means) and Hudson, Cord, and Tucker offered preselectors that allowed the driver to select the next gear but the shift actually delayed until the next clutch push. In that period, I like the '46-'47 Packards' looks. The '48-'50 Packards are famously (if un-flatteringly) called _PREGNANT ELEPHANTS_

[@MervRitter-yc2tj]

I’d take the Chrysler. Hands down. The hood on the Buick is weird

[@DavidSmith-sb2ix]

I had 49 Dodge Coronet with this transmission. It was called Gyromatic. I always started in third gear. First and second were really low.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

You drove it the way Chrysler intended it to be driven. Lo was seldom needed, except on hills.

[@genehart261]

I'd take the Buick. Overhead valve engine and a fully automatic transmission, Buick kept the dynaflow into the 1960's, Buick owners didn't want to feel the transmission shift.

[@enzomarin0]

It’s a great car

[@randywatkins2359]

Well done educational video young man! These two are wonderful representatives of pre-interstate American motoring. With that said gimme the Chrysler! Kudos to you for your interest in automotive history. I can tell that you feel fortunate for the experience to be driving these cars and I applaud you

[@TimothyChivers-n4y]

It’d be a very diffucult decision however I’d go for the Buick

[@BobbyDavenport-t2z]

The Buick I also like the way you start the Buick up and how the hood opens I love basically everything about it 😅

[@davidadkison4702]

I had a 1956 Buick Century 300 hp with Dynaflo transmission. Boy could you cruise in that. Just sailed along and got great gas mileage. 4000 pounds of class

[@enzomarin0]

Very cool

[@buzzwaldron6195]

The nail head engines weren't known for good MPG and the Dynaflow blew out all the seals the first time you floored the exhilarator pedal...

[@jamesbosworth4191]

@@buzzwaldron6195 They did drink the gas, but I never had any trouble with blown seals, and I had three different DynaFlow cars.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

You must have had the now forgotten Special Camshaft version! It was an option for 56.

[@pauljarvis7259]

I only drove a Dynaflow once and it seemed reasonable, but I think it sucks a lot of power. An old time transmission guy told me once that some Divco milk trucks used the Chrysler fluid drive system. If true, that's a tremendous tribute to its durability. Plus, it is fun to drive... because it's different.

[@enzomarin0]

It’s definitely different I like also that’s something new to drive

[@krisschumacher7716]

I would definitely have the Buick love the looks and the transmission sounds amazing

[@pauljarvis7259]

Both cars are icons of their era. Having owned a fluid drive Desoto, I can honestly say that once these transmissions are set up, they are pretty well bullet proof. Everything is massively overbuilt and the common wisdom is that the bosses at Chrysler were worried about dependability, so went with a super-strong design.

[@enzomarin0]

Very true

[@dailyclassic]

The Fluid Drive on the Chrysler does not have a torque converter, it is just a simple fluid coupling. The Fluid TORQUE Drive came out in '51 and included a torque converter that used engine oil (the fluid coupling used a special 'fluid drive fluid'. You also really only need the 'Low' range for hills. Keith's Garage made a video explaining the fluid drive system as well (though his '53 Chrysler has the fluid TORQUE drive). With the Fluid Torque Drive, you don't really need to use Low at all!

[@raffaelenegroni5888]

Well documented and yet easy explained. Very good review, I will subscribe hands down!

[@thomasmeier28]

Great presentation! Love seeing this appreciation across generations!!

[@BobbyDavenport-t2z]

I'm glad you started with the Buick I just love this car 😁

[@billdee9714]

Buick Dyna Flow carried on into the early 1960 s It was great put the car in drive and step on the gas right up to 100 miles per hour with ease. The 1959 Buick Invicta was amazing.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

That Invicta was the hot one, the 60s version of the Series 60 Century. The smaller Special body with the bigger Roadmaster engine.

[@zekecorder8226]

loved dYNAFLOW.My dad had a 56 Super and a 57 Special the special had 322cuin and the super the 346cuin. Then I had a 54 Special. also the small V-8. All had Dynaflow. Really liked the smooth "shift." My neighbor had a Chrysler with a small Hemi V-8 and fluid drive. I always felt the fluid drive was clunky compared to the SMOOTH!! Dynaflow. Very well done video.

[@cdstoc]

Back in the 1970's I read quite a bit about automatic transmissions and found the 1950s and early 1960s were very interesting, with many different approaches and designs. The Dynaflow (and Chevy Turboglide and others) were really CVTs, just not in today's sense. The Chrysler Fluid Drive was a semi-automatic, and some other automakers had similar things. What I always wanted was to ride in one to see how they worked, but your video is the next best thing, thanks!

[@20thCenturyMan]

I love them both, but I'm a Chrysler guy.

[@enzomarin0]

Chrysler is a great driver

[@66skate]

Same here, I had a 48 New Yorker years ago.

[@bobjohnson205]

You have my sympathy! lol

[@tomdelisle8955]

I really like the Chrysler including the exterior color.

[@enzomarin0]

It’s a good looking unit

The Chrysler hands down !!!!!!.

[@RoydenWilkinson]

Thank you for that clear explanation of both cars. I love the Buick body design, but from what I remember as a little kid, the Dynaflow transmission was pretty slow in the start off. I remember hearing the whine of the engine in the low speeds taking off. Both are bra and unique. Cars in that era had their distinctive designs where today they tend to be pretty generic. Thanks for that great presentation!!

[@edwardpate6128]

The Dynaflow was far more sophisticated and after a couple of mid life improvements such as the two stator torque converter it went on through the 1963 model year.

[@s2snider]

Yes, the Dynaflow was really a marvel of engineering. It still amazes me that engineers could conceive of such a complex torque converter in its later incarnations. But the TurboHydramatic that replaced it was a better performing transmission with only a slight decrease in smoothness.

[@nlpnt]

@@s2snider It also saved GM a bunch of money since it meant having only one automatic across all divisions (although Chevy's 2-speed Powerglide hung on for years after due to low cost to manufacture, light weight and minimal slippage losses).

[@jimstrict-998]

​@@nlpntWrong. The old. 4-speed Hydra-Matic was more universal, being used by Olds, Pontiac, and Cadillac.

[@joeamos1188]

Well, I have always wondered, as Buick got the Turbo-Hydramatic a year before Pontiac and Olds. It needed it.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

@@jimstrict-998 And also, in the 50s, Nash, Hudson, and Willys, and Rolls Royce too!

[@tomm1109]

An elderly friend told me, "With a Fluid drive you don't take off from a light, you just sort of ooze away."

[@enzomarin0]

Haha sort of true

[@jamesbosworth4191]

DynaFlow also - you didn't accelerate, you oozed forth.

[@harrisionstan3773]

Great video, and great to see a younger fella into the classics! Buick for win!

[@matthrivnak6572]

They're both cool cars, I like the Buick though

[@jasoncarpp7742]

Both are beautiful looking cars. My maternal grandparents drove Buicks. I don't recall if anyone drove Chrysler cars.

[@larrymiller4]

I love the 50's terminology, meant to impress with a sense of power -- Dynaflow, Fluid Drive -- something about it that made you think back then, wow, that's...that's so...I don't know, EARLY FIFTIES FUNKY? It's like automotive technology was just getting started into a post-war advancement, and they had to think of these names that later sounded so primitive.

[@sallyb3]

Loved this. Definitely the Chrysler convertible ❤ Thxz so much!

[@RobertJarecki]

Liked the video. Those are 2 fine cars. Of the 2, I would prefer the Dynaflow though I don't know if that's bc it's in a woody wagon. And, I've heard Dynaflows used a lot of gas. If you find one, you may be interested in the original Packard Ultramatic transmission. The shift quadrant reads P N D L R. The car is usually started in Drive (Low is only for heavy loads and has to be manually shifted to Drive). Then, once in Drive, there is no shifting. When the car gets to about 25 mph it shifts to a direct drive from the torque converter and bypasses the torque converter so there's no slippage. The kindest thing I've seen written about it is that it was designed for leisurely acceleration. The Ultramatic was introduced in 1950 and was so similar to GM's Hydramatic that GM sued Packard. The design was later changed to improve the performance and durability. The new design was called the Twin Ultramatic. I drove a Packard with Ultramatic and a 288 CID inline 8 from Irvine California to Springfield Missouri and back, kept careful gas and mileage records and got a bit over 22 mpg. I didn't go over 60 mph because it's not safe. The first night I had the car, I drove it without dashlights and checked the instruments with a flashlight. A very smooth ride that allowed the car to speed up to 100 mph without my knowledge. *_Packard: Ask The Man Who Owns One_* Edit: If the Buick has the Carter carburetor with the starter switch inside the carburetor, disconnecting the present starter switch and installing pushbutton starter switch under the dash might be a good idea. Over the years, the in carburetor switch can wear and get stuck, leaving the starter running all the time.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

I think GM was mad because it was similar to Dynaflow, not Hydramatic. That Twin Ultramatic came out in 54 and started out in 1st, then automatically shifted to high. It gave much better performance, but shifted kind of hard, so, for 55, they shrunk the size of the Hi clutch, which ruined an innovative transmission.

[@rickciaburri2598]

Great explanations! Let's remember that these cars were from an era that predates the Interstate Highways. Speeds above 50-55 were uncommon. The Buick is more advanced with its overhead valve engine. I imagine that the driving the DynaFlow is similar to a modern CVT,

[@Rick-S-6063]

Funny how you mention a Dynaflow might seem like a modern CVT, and you're right. To an extent they have their similarities. I have a 2020 Hyundai Accent with a CVT. A good friend's summer cruiser is a 1960 Buick LeSabre with a Dynaflow. We've both noticed how they never shift, although the CVT isn't winding itself silly at highway speeds. And, I like my 35+ MPG compared to his 10 MPG, if he's lucky.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

@@Rick-S-6063 But a 1960 Buick, even a LeSabre, the 60s version of the Series 40 Special, is a WAY nicer car than any Hyundai could ever hope to be! To me, that is worth the extra gas. You only live once.

[@Rick-S-6063]

@@jamesbosworth4191 Yet my friend with the '60 LeSabre always praises my Hyundai and says it's a great looking car. Maybe that's because mine is red and not black, white or gray like 95% of the cars on the road today. ;)

[@jamesbosworth4191]

@@Rick-S-6063 If red, it is much better looking, that's for sure!

[@joealbert7773]

Your information is close as to how the transmissions operate. The Chrysler does not have a torque convertor, it has a fluid coupling. It is similar to a torque convertor, but it doesn't multiply torque. It is a two element device with a pump and impeller. The Buick has a torque convertor which does multiply torque. A simple torque convertor has a pump and impeller much like the fluid coupling, but it adds curved blades and a stator. The Buick uses a multiple element torque convertor. The actual transmission in the Buick is a two speed much like a Powerglide. However, during normal operation, D position, it starts and stays in high gear. You only get low gear in the L position. Buick did continue the Dynaflow up till the 64 model year. In 64 they went to the GM 400 automatic.

[@lasalleman6792]

I like the Buick Dynaflow, with the little port holes. Can't beat those portholes.

[@enzomarin0]

Beutifull

[@scrambler69-xk3kv]

Known as vent a ports I believe.

[@thomasthurston6656]

​@@scrambler69-xk3kv Ventiports

[@thomasthurston6656]

They did function on the 87 GNX.

[@barnabius]

Amazing to see how smoothly these systems are working after so many years

[@JuniorFan08]

I liken the CVT in my Forester to the Dynaflow. Yes, they put in "fake" shifts, but driven modestly you never feel it shift.

[@enzomarin0]

interesting I've never felt it

[@rickc303]

Fluid Drive is not a torque converter, it's just a fluid coupling

[@HarryParentII]

Fluid drive is a clutch attached to a torque converter

[@htimsid]

@rickc303: No, the video correctly described Fluid Drive. And, from another source: 'Fluid Drive is the trademarked name that Chrysler Corporation assigned to a transmission driveline combination which replaced the flywheel with a hydraulic coupling and performed the same function as a modern torque converter, only without torque multiplication. A conventional clutch, and three- or four-speed manual transmission was installed behind the fluid coupling.'

[@winstonelston5743]

@@HarryParentII There were a lot of Fluid Drive systems, some using torque converters, some with a simple hydraulic coupling, some later versions using torque converters. Check out the ads from the period and you will find that some models even offered a full three-speed manual behind the fluid coupling. After Hydramatic and Ultramatic and Dynadlow and Powerglide and Studebaker's imaginatively named _Automatic Drive_ came on line, Chrysler began stamping the pads for the left pedal _SAFETY CLUTCH_ in a passive-aggressive way to remind buyers that fully automatic transmissions are unsafe.

[@davef.2329]

Also known as a Torus coupling. Some old aircraft engines used these in the power recovery turbine systems.

[@adiamondforever7890]

I had a 56 Buick Special I got from my uncle, the Dynaflow’s weak point was its front pump. As you let up on the accelerator, the transmission went from about 3 to 1 towards 1 to 1 so going down hill you were to use low (grade retard) to not overuse the brakes as Vantage or Grapevine wouldn’t last the hill. Today’s tires and brake linings are much improved. Have fun

[@epice6463]

I have a 1948 Buick Roadmaster and I have to say the dynaflow transmission is a big pain

[@jamesbosworth4191]

DynaFlow at first had stators with fixed blades. The Variable Pitch DynaFlow came out for 55, and was the only DynaFlow for 56 and 57. For 58 and 59, there was also a triple turbine Flight Pitch DynaFlow, but it's performance was no better than the regular DynaFlow, yet it cost more.

[@bobharrison7693]

What a pleasure to see this video! When I was 6, my dad bought a new (first new car in town) 1947 DeSoto with fluid drive. The Dyna Flow Buicks had a distinctive sound as they came down the road -- you could hear the beautiful sounding straight 8 pitch change as the vanes in the transmission change angles and, in an older one, you could hear the torque tube rear end softly clanking. Since we had the DeSoto for 6 years, I will have to go with the the MOPARs.

[@andy41417]

8:14 Dynaflow was made to work with torque tube drive which had only one universal joint. Other GM divisions had two universals and no rigid tube avoiding much of the shift shock. The 1938 Buick Special had a self shifting automatic clutch 4 speed. Discontinued after one year as shifts were hard, sequential and transmitted through the torque tube.

[@floridarusticrepairs]

Nice video. I've owned several cars with the dynaflow. Of these two cars, the Buick is far simpler to manage. That being said, the reason why we're not all driving cars with a dynaflow transmissions now, is that it required a lot of horsepower to run. The Chrysler fluid drive is like a poor man's hydramatic so I'd still go with the Buick. Great video. Subscribed.

[@enzomarin0]

Very interesting and thanks for subscribing

[@claycoates5056]

The Bang Amatic in the Chrysler was an interesting transmission to work on they did have an Automatic they were very costly and few were built i saw one at Chrysler in the 60s and it looked like Overly worked mess at best the Dynaflow was impressive but not much better thank you for the look back

[@ronaldfazekas6492]

Having owned a 1946 Dodge for over 20 years, it should be noted that due to the torque converter, it will still roll even if left in gear, so you must use the emergency brake every time you park

[@enzomarin0]

Yes very true

[@buzzwaldron6195]

And it got to be called the Parking Brake...

[@jamesbosworth4191]

Very true! It was good to have a wheel block with you!

[@rickstevens1479]

Not sure how late Buick kept the Dynaflow but my parents had a 57 estate wagon with the same Dyna -flow ...😮. Great cars..

[@auteurfiddler8706]

Good video. On the Chrysler, that plaid interior suggests the "Highlander" trim level. I would caution that the Fluid Coupling is not a Torque Converter. For 1951, they offered two semi automatic transmissions with V8 cars. The "Fluid Drive" and the "Fluid Torque Drive" with a true torque converter. The name was on the steering column along with a guide to the shift pattern. Fun fact. The Fluid drive coupling (Torque converter looking donut) was a sealed unit and did not share fluid the gearbox part of the transmission. The main ingredient of the fluid was whale oil, something they did not advertise. The Fluid Torque Drive was optional on V8 model but standard on the Crown Imperial Limo. It provided better get away than Fluid Drive but was said to slip more at speed. With Fluid Torque Drive and even Fluid Drive, customers rarely used the lower range. So, when they came out with a new fully automatic transmission, it only had two forward gears, roughly 3rd and 4th from the older transmissions. With a Torque converter, it was enough. As for looks, the Buick features post war styling while the Chrysler line up until 1949 was little changed from the 40-41 cars. So, I give the edge go GM in styling post war. I wonder how the Powerglide compares to a continuously variable transmission CVT of today.

[@auteurfiddler8706]

PS: a Fluid Drive car can NOT be converted to 12 volts. Basically the only 1955 and older car that can not.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

@@auteurfiddler8706 FACTS! You will burn out the switches and relays on the Fluid Drive, then it won't shift.

[@marklohmann6267]

Very good presentation. I remember cars back then tried to isolate us from the road. Kinda scary at high speeds not to mention taking much longer to stop. Even gentle turns in hot weather caused squealing from those old bias ply tires with the high sidewalls. They were elegant though for sure.

[@enzomarin0]

thank you

[@jamesbosworth4191]

We WANTED to be isolated from the road, and it didn't scare us at all. You can use radials if you want, but they don't ride as well and make more noise.

[@davidcarroll1883]

I like the whine sound the Buick makes while driving. Thats an awesome wagon you have!

[@enzomarin0]

Not mine but thank you

[@Coolalabright]

I love the design of cars in the 1940s and 50s, the 1940s and 50s were all about style and luxury and I love it

[@wymple09]

I'm an old man, 76, & grew up with this stuff. The Chrysler was a step below, period.

[@ggeorge4144]

I would give anything to go back to the day I was born in 1942 and do it over. We never appreciate what we have until it's gone. The late 40's through the 60's were the greatest time to be alive. Anyone who had a job could own a house. Anyone could open a business. Land and housing were so cheap. I bought a 1/2 acre with a small building on it right on the main street of the town I lived in 1966 for $2500. The mortgage was $50.00 a month. I opened a music store there and gave guitar lessons. Now I am old, cars all look the same, the average worker can no longer afford a house. It's sad to see the country I once loved being completely taken over by corporations. Sorry for the rant, I love the Chrysler convertible, we owned one just like in 1954.

[@billnyilas8]

I was born in 1948 and agree with everything you had to say. I feel so fortunate to have lived in those great years back then.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

You are exactly right. I was born in 55, so I missed a big part of it - Saint Ronnie destroyed it when I was in my mid 20s. The country became a 3 World country because of that man. In the 1940s - 60s, we didn't have armies of homeless, not even in the 70s, and before the 70s, it was easy for the common man to start a business, and cars were fantastic. Works of art, not just "efficiency" focused.

[@josephmazur8778]

Great informative video. I vote for the Buick. I grew up in a town with a General Motors assembly plant which employed maybe half of the residents. So it was unheard of to have any association with a Chrysler. But as a kid I do remember riding in my aunt’s ‘56 Century. Maybe it did accelerate at a processional pace but I do remember the absence of any automatic gear changes.

[@enzomarin0]

Buick is a good looking car for sure

[@gpowerdragon9852]

The buick has like a transmission of a Hydro statt HST like Kubota tractors got cool